Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:18 pm

Cards Playable On Automatic-Attacks

Current Text Of Rule:
CRF, Automatic Attacks wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
New Rule:
When facing an automatic attack, you may only play resources that state they are playable on an attack or strike or a character/company facing such. You may not play such a resource if it specifies it may not be played on automatic attacks.

Gameplay And Balance Reasons For The Change:
This will be a lot easier to remember, and will open up card flow to more than just those who use Chance Meeting/WHCtK to get around automatic-attacks. Reintroducing strike-assignment cards opens up active MP gathering for Ringwraiths through use of Sojourn in Shadows. As an added bonus, this rule will make much more intuitive sense to new players.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by marcos » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:12 pm

aye

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:27 pm

Agreed.

2 things:
- I'd like to hear some cons (other than it being against official rule).
- I don't think this will have important effects on game play, so I don't share those with big ilusions about it.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Shapeshifter » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:56 pm

Aye.

To give the rules gurus (netrep team) a chance to comment on this let's either put this thing in the general/rules section or give them rights to post here. This will be the first task for the experts (see this topic).
Do we have to vote on whom we shall invite?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:59 pm

Sauron is already commenting on CoE issues in the general forum. :)

I'd prefer to keep this thread strictly for the voting.

We could start a parallel thread in the General Forum.

By the way, I'll add my own "aye" to this. :)

http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=12&t=159

A previous NetRep team already suggested that the rule be given erratum, but nothing came of it due to the generally lethargic Erratum process.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Jose-san » Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:08 am

Definitely Aye!

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:11 pm

We have 5 agreed; that would be enough for a revised erratum process such as the one I proposed elsewhere.

We need one more for the current erratum process, don't we (two thirds)?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:35 pm

Back from holiday . . .

getting to work

Aye to this one for sure

it was a fuck-up the way it was before

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:48 pm

Either by old or new methods, then, this has the minimum number of required "aye" votes.

We need to either send it to the mailing list for ratification or figure out a new erratum process. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Frodo
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Frodo » Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:27 pm

I was always displeased with the way the cards playable on auto-attacks had been ruled, because it made it VERY DIFFICULT for players to remember, and not at all intuitive. So I would give my AYE to opening this revision up for debate.

However, it was my understanding that the rules people had good reasons for deciding this, and I want to hear what they were. Or maybe there only reasons were to keep tradition with a strict interpretation of cards? If the second, I don't mind breaking tradition.

--Frodo

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:32 pm

Check the link eariler in the thread; the rules people ruled that way because the rules are explicit. Wacho even suggests it be sent to the CoE for errata.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:02 pm

Just for my peace of mind, at this point you are only voting for the erratum to be playtested, correct? :D

This is a big change and will have some ramifications.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: Automatic-attacks wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
I believe the above quote is very closely related to the amendment to Annotation 24 and a clarification found in the Balrog rules:
CRF: Rulings by Term: Timing wrote:# Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.

# (amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).
Balrog Rules: Specific Rules for MEBA: Cards with Multiple Actions (Clarification) wrote:...As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.
So, if we change what you can play vs. automatic-attacks, IMO same should be extended to cards with multiple actions where (at least) one of the effects is an attack. I think Ben's new rule proposal could use a rewording, and I'll be happy to provide one later on, but in general I am for this change as well because it will make the game more intuitive and, even more importantly, fun. :D

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Shapeshifter » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:31 pm

miguel wrote:Just for my peace of mind, at this point you are only voting for the erratum to be playtested, correct? :D
Correct.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:22 pm

Playtesting, forsooth. There's no need according to the old or new charters. This has received the majority vote and Thorondor can send it to the mailing list whenever he wants to.

Playtesting? Most people already play this way. They aren't aware of the rule.

But if we must have playtesting, then fine.

Anybody until the end of the month can make decks and test. If anything turns out to be more powerful/broken than playing CM/WHCtK in the site phase, feel free to post it here.

If you don't care enough to playtest this in a month's time, then it obviously didn't matter much, did it?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks

Post by Sauron » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:57 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Playtesting, forsooth. There's no need according to the old or new charters. This has received the majority vote and Thorondor can send it to the mailing list whenever he wants to.

Playtesting? Most people already play this way. They aren't aware of the rule.

But if we must have playtesting, then fine.

Anybody until the end of the month can make decks and test. If anything turns out to be more powerful/broken than playing CM/WHCtK in the site phase, feel free to post it here.

If you don't care enough to playtest this in a month's time, then it obviously didn't matter much, did it?
Besides Sojourn in Shadow can you think of any other cards this would allow to be played that can't currently be played? I'd need to think about this and see more examples before I could come up with an opinion on this one.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”